South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Kimberly J. Wyatt, ONeal Grocery, Inc., d/b/a ONeal Grocery vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Kimberly J. Wyatt, ONeal Grocery, Inc., d/b/a ONeal Grocery

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-17-0208-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: Kenneth E. Allen, Esquire

For the Respondent: Nicholas P. Sipe, Esquire

For the Protestants: Charles M. Groves, Esquire
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-1-55, et seq. (Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Rev. 1986 and Supp. 1994) for a hearing pursuant to the application of Kimberly J. Wyatt, ONeal Grocery, Inc., d/b/a ONeal Grocery ("applicant") for an off-premise beer and wine permit (AI 100787) at 3700 North Highway 101, Greer, Greenville County, South Carolina ("location").

A hearing was held on June 13, 1995 at the Administrative Law Judge Division, Columbia, South Carolina. The sole issues for consideration was the moral character of applicant's husband, Raymond Wyatt, as an employee at the grocery store.

The application request was protested by Troy Cooper and Mamie Cooper ("protestants"). The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation ("Department") objected tot he applicant's husband having any ownership interest or being an employee at the grocery store.

At the call of the case, it was announced by the applicant that the issue of her husband's relationship with the store operation, either as a na employee or as part owner, had been resolved with the Department and an agreement to that affect was presented to the court. However, so signature from a Department official was affixed and it was returned to applicant's counsel to have such accomplished and then filed with this Division to be attached and incorporated as a part of this Order. No one appeared representing the Department and it had not notified the court it would not appear.

Further, the protestants nor their legal counsel appeared. The court called Mr. Groves at his office in Greenville, South Carolina and learned that he would not be appearing since his clients no longer wished to protest the Petitioner's application request.(1)

After having reviewed the file consisting of the certified copies of the Department's file which was made a part of the record of the Administrative Law Judge Division's record, prehearing briefs and correspondence and, after having received the agreement between the parties as to the applicant's husband's relationship with the grocery store operation, it is concluded that the agreement and withdrawal of the protest resolved all issues for consideration by this court and the Department should proceed with processing Petitioner's application.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondent shall proceed with further processing of Petitioner's application.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



___________________________________________

Marvin F. Kittrell

Chief Judge

1. Counsel are reminded of their responsibility as officers of the court to advise it of settlements, withdrawals of protests and request of it leave not to attend. Judicial economy warrants such.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court